As the summer ember scorns our skins, we rest aloof, standing in this despondent dilemma swaying between the trope of being a hopelessly rogue romantic to being the all sturdy impoverished imbecile who flees from love. With modern-day society advancing towards a broader definition and meaning of everything, one thing that has existed since time immemorial is ‘Love.’ But is ‘Love’ really what we think it is, or is it just another one of society’s bars that predefines a certain way of being to fit into the socially constructed space we live in?
In a world that appears incomprehensible and hegemonized, contemporary society is frequently characterized by loneliness, alienation, and an unquelled longing for love and connection. Despite the fleeting nature of our lives as mere cosmic dust, we devote a significant portion of our existence to pursuing and idealizing love as the meaning of life. In the existentialist experience of confronting the inherent nothingness and meaninglessness of existence, it can be argued that individuals often seek solace and purpose by attaching great significance to entities such as love.
Love is often seen as the pinnacle of human existence, a feeling so intense and all-consuming that it appears to transcend beyond all else. From medieval European romantic traditions to current obsessions with soulmates and situation-ships, our views about love continuously evolve and are affected by the world around us. One of the essential con crux of considering love as a social construct is that it is not a fixed or universal idea. While commonly viewed as something passionate and tangible, love is predominantly a social construct of ideals propagated by mass media and existing as cultural standards. Different cultures have varied perspectives on love, with varying expectations and customs around romantic relationships. Arranged marriages and rigid gender roles are the norms in certain societies, whereas casual dating and polyamory are more acceptable in others.
Why is fidelity intrinsically linked to love? Why can't one love two people equally without being labelled as unfaithful? Does this call one’s "love" into question? We are taught that someone who genuinely loves you must give you everything you desire - time, attention, and patience - and only to you. Not only may one individual love more than one person, but it is also only a question of time and the loss of novelty until someone decides they have ceased "loving" you and "loves" someone else instead. In the same sense, something that society thinks should be eternal might be dissolved overnight - one could be abandoned, one could have never committed. Thus, at its foundation, love is an objective choice, not something ethereal and emotional, and relationships are based only on rational and purposeful commitment. Many people make falling in love sound haphazard and accidental, yet it is a very deliberate decision. You choose to love someone, which means you choose to give a person what society considers necessary for love. We also create a culture in which individuals feel forced to stay in bad or even violent relationships by emphasising the significance of finding "the one" and prioritising romantic connections above all else.
Another impediment to love’s social construction is its connection with power and privilege. Certain types of love and relationships are valued more than others in various countries, with heteronormative monogamous relationships being regarded as the sole sincere form of love. This not only marginalizes those who do not fit into this mold but also promotes detrimental gender norms and stereotypes.
Modern Day adaptation of Romeo and Juliet
Yet even amid these unstipulated barriers, love has been a form of fascination and muse for writers, painters, musicians, and artists alike. For generations, love has been a source of inspiration, explored in literature, art, and philosophy. From the adumbration of the entire message of ‘Till death do us part’, to the trope of star-crossed lovers like ‘Romeo and Juliet’ or ‘Heer and Ranjha’ alike, we have been instilled with the idea of what love is supposed to look like through mass media.
Nihilist philosophers, who deny conventional moral and cultural norms, have also investigated the notion that love is a social construct. According to Friedrich Nietzsche, the notion of passionate love is a cultural fabrication that has been exploited to encourage monogamy and the maintenance of the family unit. In “Thus Spoke Zarathustra,” he stated, “Love is not only a feeling, it is an art...the more unnatural, the more distorted it is, the more it calls for artists.” Similarly, Michel Foucault criticized love as a tool to maintain power dynamics and cultural norms. He argues in his book “The History of Sexuality,” “Love is not a sentimental, but a political category.” According to Foucault, love is frequently employed to govern sexual behavior and enforce cultural assumptions about gender and sexuality.
A still from Scenes from a marriage by Inger Bergman
Internationally acclaimed movie directors like Tarkovsky, Krzysztof Kieslowski, and Bergman have all explored and implored the audience with beautiful portrayals of the various facets of love, from deconstructing established cultural conventions and expectations around marriage and love to demonstrating how they may generate power imbalances and control in relationships. But even as this media exists, popular media still professes the same heteronormative monogamous idea of love.
In the play “No Exit,” Sartre famously remarked, “Hell is other people.” This phrase represents Sartre’s conviction that other people may bring us discomfort, typically because they have expectations and judgments that limit our freedom and autonomy. Sartre’s views on love as a social construct are likewise intertwined with his existentialist philosophy. He felt that love, like other parts of human experience, is a subjective and contingent term formed and supported by individuals and society. In his book “Being and Nothingness,” Sartre contends that love is not a fixed or essential attribute of humans but rather a projection of our desires and expectations.
Similarly to Sartre, Beauvoir argued that love is a subjective and contingent idea formed and nourished by individuals and society. In her book “The Second Sex,” Simone de Beauvoir contends that conventional cultural constructs of love, such as marriage and monogamy, perpetuate gender roles while limiting women’s independence and autonomy.
However, Beauvoir held a more sophisticated conception of love than Sartre. While she recognized that love could cause conflict and oppression, she also viewed it as a means for people to transcend their constraints and connect with others.
Sartre and Beauvoir with their eminent romantic relationship
Ironically as their bodies rest next to each other, the juxtaposition of Sartre and Beauvoir’s views on love as a social construct reflects the multifaceted nature and contradictions of the phenomenon. Love may be a source of freedom, as well as oppression, connection as well as conflict, and its meaning and value can vary widely depending on individual and cultural variables.
In the existentialist experience of nothingness, we are confronted with the absence of inherent meaning or purpose in the universe. We exist in a vast cosmos, seemingly devoid of objective significance. However, within this existential void, we have the power to redefine our existence by turning towards entities of love and making them the focal point and sole meaning of life.
In the face of our ephemeral existence as living, breathing stardust, we are compelled to draw akin to one another. We recognize our shared origin and interconnectedness, transcending the artificial boundaries that society imposes upon us. We understand that our time on Earth is stipulated, and therefore, we strive to forge meaningful connections, cultivate genuine relationships, and leave a positive imprint on the lives of others. However, our pursuit of love and meaningful connections stands in stark contrast to the prevailing winds of post-modern society. We find ourselves entangled in the web of superficiality, materialism, and the pursuit of transient pleasures. The constructs of modern civilization often promotes self-centeredness, individualism, and the accumulation of wealth and status, which diverts us from the true essence of our existence.
Yet, amidst this quagmire, we navigate through the complexities of our contemporary world and discern the true worth of these societal constructs. We challenge the futility of superficial desires and external validations, realizing that the pursuit of material possessions and social status alone cannot bring lasting fulfillment. Instead, we redirect our focus towards love, compassion, and genuine connections that bring true meaning to our lives.
By anchoring ourselves in love, we embark on a journey of self-discovery and transformation. We dismantle the illusions and facades that mask our authentic selves, embracing vulnerability and embracing the depths of human emotion. In doing so, we not only enrich our own lives but also inspire and uplift those around us.
Ultimately, by centering our existence on love and forging connections based on authenticity and compassion, we transcend the limitations of societal constructs and find solace and purpose in the vastness of existence. We recognize that love is the thread that weaves together the tapestry of humanity, and it is through love that we can truly find meaning in our fleeting moments as living, breathing stardust.
In the realm of love, we discover a sacred sanctuary where definitions and boundaries find no place. In this sanctuary of love, we discard conformity, unveiling our essence, with tender vulnerability. For true love lies in the whispers of authenticity and idiosyncracy, not in the echoes of societal rigidity. Love, in its purest form, knows no constraint. It flows freely, unburdened by societal taint. A canvas upon which our deepest passions unfold. No brushstrokes dictated by external gaze, but colors that are chosen by our heartfelt craze. It’s not a possession to hoard or claim as one’s own but a gift to share, an endless, divine sanctuary.
-- Akash Rupam Ekka